As many of you know, I live in Hawaii. Yesterday was a state holiday celebrating the birthday of Prince Jonah Kuhio who was an heir to the Hawaiian throne when Queen Lili`uokalani was overthrown by American businessmen.
It got me to thinking about Liliuokalani and her predecessor, King Kalakaua and their relationship with the arts. Even in captivity Lili`uokalani, who was an accomplished songwriter and writer, had a profound effect on Hawaiian culture. Many of her compositions, including Aloha `Oe, are still sung or used today.
King Kalakaua had an even greater impact on the arts. He is known as the “Merrie Monarch” for his patronage of the arts. He is especially known for his revival of many Hawaiian cultural traditions, including hula which had been banned because missionaries viewed it as obscene. Today, the Merrie Monarch Festival is an annual hula event held in his honor.
As I think about these things, I can’t help but wonder if the United States has lost something by not having the example of monarchy that patronized the arts as a strong element of its cultural heritage.
Certainly foundations spread funding around to more organizations than any noble patron could ever do. There is also no arguing that the Medici, Vatican and Elizabethean support of the arts was predicated on the works matching their agendas and validating their power. As I read the historical influences of the arts in the United States in Joli Jensen’s Is Art Good For Us?, I can see some benefits to the way things developed here.
However, the example of a national leader supporting the arts can go a long way. The proud anti-intellectualism of the current administration aside, with a few exceptions, it is difficult for me to think of any time a president attended an arts event or sponsored one in the White House. This is not to say that they didn’t, it is only that there wasn’t much ado made of it in the media. On the other hand, I can easily recall stories about trips to Camp David and Crawford, Texas and what the places generally looked it.
The few exceptions I mentioned earlier don’t bode well for presidents. The first examples that pop in to my mind when I think of presidential support for the arts are Lincoln at the Ford Theatre and Kennedy’s tribute to Robert Frost at Amherst College which is viewed as the impeteus for the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts. (Though it was President Johnson who signed the act creating the NEA.) President Clinton also comes to mind with his sax. He might have been a good proponent for arts funding if he had a better relationship with Congress. Unfortunately, things didn’t turn out well for any of these gentlemen.
The presidency has many traditions that it engages in from tree lighting, egg hunts and turkey pardoning. It would be great if someone could influence a president to begin the precendent of making an annual donation to some arts fund or foundation (to prevent the appearance of favoritism to any group or genre) with great fanfare. Actually, it would be great to see the president attending an event with great fanfare as well. However, as busy as the president can tend to be, it might not be a good message to send if some crisis continually leads to cancelling attendance.
